@Usernames I didn’t know about the Eufy thing (hadn’t happened yet when I got mine) but reading through that article it just seems like they messed up security, point being it wasn’t malicious, so I see no reason to stop buying their cables because of that.
While you may not attribute malice to their actions (perhaps just incompetence) I think knowingly misleading customers like they did with the prominent local only marketing (the main attraction of the product and likely the main reason somebody would choose to buy the product) then not acknowledging or explaining their “errors” or even apologising instead deleting the privacy promises from their materials is not a company I want to see or help grow.
This is a personal choice each of us need to make but I believe we need to hold companies/people accountable.
I’m happy if people are aware of Eufy’s history and the link between Eufy and Anker and can make up their own minds on what they want to support. Just like I cannot force people to support right to repair I’m still conscious of what I encourage or discourage with how I spend my money, I feel like it’s one of the only ways we have a tangible impact on the world around us.
Original video from security researcher Paul Moore
Here is a video from LTT explaining why they are dropping Anker as a sponsor, Linus is know for being very anti misleading marketing so it is no surprise to me they dropped Anker.
My understanding is that at this point Anker is going to be scrutinizing their own product more, a third party firm is going to scrutinize their stuff internally, and another third party is going scrutinize their stuff in public. Far better than the empty assurances from other manufacturers that they are secure…i.e. have not been exposed yet. Essentially Anker is now handling it correctly.
As I understood it they issued an apology for poor communication not directly apologising for their misleading statements or marketing claims (which they deleted instead of fixing the product to match) or mistakes they made.
That they could market a product highly focused on local only security and privacy while not being either including uploading facial recognition data to their AWS server already speaks poorly of the company to me but more so was the way they handled the situation, it was not encouraging at all.
I know what you are saying but I would never buy any IOT cameras or IOT devices in general.
I’m glad they fixed their mistakes (for all users of the product) that is good but not surprising (unless they want to kill the company) but my point was also the handling was poor plus nature of the missteps do not inspire confidence.
I don’t necessarily agree with your view that admitting to a mistake is the same as apologising for it though I can certainly see you point of view.
As a reminder of the first paragraph of the linked Verge article: